Reason: Three reasons Benghazi matters

posted at 4:41 pm on May 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

With the lid coming off of what very clearly looks like an attempt to cover up the nature of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Obama administration apologists have stepped up their efforts to flood the debate with paraphrases of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attempt to shut down discussion of the White House response — “What difference at this point does it make?” One even tried to shift blame onto the House GOP for the altered talking points. Nick Gillespie at Reason offers three basic reasons that the US needs an investigation into the attack and the administration’s deliberate attempt to shift the focus from terrorism to a YouTube video:

1.We still don’t know what really happened.

The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department’s own “accountability review,” we still don’t know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn’t or couldn’t respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn’t an answer.

2.U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack.

Even after it became clear that the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton invoked it as the cause of the attack at a memorial service for the slain Americans. And President Obama told the United Nations that everyone should condemn “those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

3.We still don’t have a foreign policy in the Middle East – or anywhere else.

How does the murder of an ambassador to a country we helped liberate reflect on the way in which we got involved in Libya: President Obama dispatched forces without consulting Congress. As U.S. involvment in Syria and elsewhere heats up, the absolute lack of a coherent – much less constitutional – foreign policy will only lead to more tragedies both in the Middle East and throughout the world.

There are more reasons that just these three, but that last one is a big, big deal. Politicians in Washington, inside and outside of the administration, are demanding another US intervention in Syria of the same sort that produced a Libya we’re now preparing to flee, and where Americans can’t walk safely even in the capital. The false narrative had the effect, intended or not, of covering up the disaster that our intervention has created in Libya, and which led directly to the attack on our consulate by radical Islamist terrorists.

At this point, acknowledging that disaster would make a great deal of difference in what we do about Syria.

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history. Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here. And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.

Update: Paul Brandus at The Week (one of my colleagues there) acknowledges that the dam has burst with ABC’s revelation, and that Republicans turned out to be right all along:

The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.

There’s a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don’t really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration’s defense — and it’s looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that’s a big part of why Rice said what she did.

Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration’s strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that’s what it did.

But now the dam has burst. Carney’s “here at the White House” comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus. Republicans, who leaked the edited emails to Karl and Hayes, have succeeded on two fronts: They’ve got the administration on the defensive over Benghazi, and they’ve weakened the Democrat’s most formidable 2016 candidate.

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Gloria Borger and the CNN host actually held a good segment on the Benghazi talking points, noting the administration’s impact on the talking points and the context of it being an election year. Borger even says the talking points were edited down from the CIA’s original draft to something that was totally untrue.

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

This cannot be stated enough. They’re already trying to make it all about the actual murders, which I guess they believe they can just say ‘Hey, we made a mistake’.

Same thing they did with Billy Jeff. ‘It’s really none of you business what 2 consenting adults are doing behind closed doors.’

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

The bigger issues are why no security was provided to our people and why no rescue or intervention was permitted. The President is the only person who could order forces in to a rescue operation or order them to stand down. He deliberately left 30+ defenseless Americans in the embassy to fend for themselves (the fact that there were zero armed guards is flabbergasting) and four of our people, including the Ambassador, were slaughtered.

The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.

“Signed off on” does not mean the CIA made the changes.

So who made the changes.

Carney says the WH didn’t make the changes.

IIRC, State denies making the changes.

Petreas says he was shocked when he first saw the changes made to the original talking points in a WH meeting. That indicates either the head of the CIA was out of the loop if the CIA made the changes or the CIA did not make the changes.

Petreas says he was shocked when he first saw the changes made to the original talking points in a WH meeting. That indicates either the head of the CIA was out of the loop if the CIA made the changes or the CIA did not make the changes.

farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Looks like the rats are starting to climb over each other to get off the sinking ship….

Beck said something today that the Rethuglicans need to repeat with gusto at every opportunity when accused of playing politics with this. That is she’s already buried herself: there’s no need to take her down. If the American people vote for her now, we’re already doomed.

JAY CARNEY IS A LYING WORM!
IS THAT CAPS LOCK ENOUGH FOR YOU, RACHEL MADDOW?
AND, JON STEWART, YOUR AUDIENCE HAS NO CLUE WHAT BENGHAZI IS, MUCH LESS HOW TO SPELL IT.
THESE THREE MEN NEED TO BE PUBLICLY SHAMED AND FIRED!

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

Yes and the implication is even deeper than the election. This administration COVERED UP A TERRORIST BY AL-QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATE, ANSAR AL-SHARIA AND BLAMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Cover up for our enemies and imprison someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.

I don’t like to throw around this word, but – in a fair world – such would be considered TREASONOUS.

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

Which is why who made the changes to the talking points and why is important.

Which is why we need to know who knew what and when.

The “spontaneous protest” cover story was promoted by the WH and State for at least a couple of weeks.

There is solid evidence that many people knew, including acting Ambassador Hicks, that that was not true from the start.

I’d rather not take the chance.
After the last 2 major elections, I don’t trust the voters any more – or the process.
If we have the opportunity to burn this witch now, I say we do it and make dam sure she doesn’t come back to haunt us.

With the lid coming off of what very clearly looks like an attempt to cover up the nature of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi

Sorry, but I beg to differ .
I think the story is not the coverup and the nature of attack on our counsulate,
the story is and should be how 4 Americans were set up by their government to be assasinated and to protect what ????
This investigation should be about
Fast and Furious –islamic edition ,
not
who lied ?

Why should we even have to ask the question in a representative democracy? We, the people, do not have to prove why something “matters” before we can ask our representatives a question.

The President is elected by us. He works for us. The government is “of the people.” Meaning, it is created and derives its power from the governed. That’s us.

What is there, within the workings of that government, that we have no “right” to know? The American people have a right to know everything about what their employees are doing and how they’re going about it.

NOBODY in government has the right to tell me that their actions don’t “matter.” I’ll decide what matters. Your job, Hillary, Barack, whoever the hell you are, is to answer the questions, not tell me which questions I am allowed to ask.

This attitude and behavior, treating the government as something separate from (and, in this case, above) the citizens who form that government has to stop.

In the case of Benghazi, get a real prosecutor in there, put these people under oath, and let a professional conduct the examination, rather than a bunch of amateurs. A hearing shouldn’t mean an opportunity to “hear” a speech.

We are the people. We have a right to answers. No matter what the President or Ms. Clinton or either party’s water-carriers in the Congress think.

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

We know this much for certain – as President and Commander in Chief only Obama could have ordered such a complete “stand down” of the entire U.S. Military. Even after 7 hours (and no one knew it wouldn’t have gone on longer, even much longer) there wasn’t a single military aircraft even on it’s way to help those at Benghazi.

Look for a coverup, some say? Only the Three Monkeys of Oblivion could possibly miss it and they would have to make an extra effort. When it comes to Obama, Big Media and Big Academia are like the OJ jury, willfully blind, deaf and dumb in lockstep to Obama’s depraved indifference. Obama might just as well have personally ordered the deaths of those Americans at Benghazi himself. Meanwhile the scapegoated video maker stays in prison. It should be Obama.

No I am not kidding, but yes I agree with your statement. I would just point out that the democrats will always attempt to campaign on those terms, no matter who their candidate is, which makes having someone you can nail to the wall on something else that much more valuable.

There were a number of stories in the months after 9/11/12 positing the “botched kidnapping then exchange for blind Sheikh” theory.

I’m not ready to climb that far out on a limb, but the idea that the whole thing was supposed to be a kidnapping, then went horribly off the rails the moment the attackers killed the ambassador by setting fire to the safe area … it makes a certain amount of sense.

If this were the case, the obvious question would be, were we planning to allow this to happen, or were we actually trying to stop it?

I don’t claim this is anything more than idle speculation, but there’s such a shortage of facts, and such an abundance of loose ends, that it’s hard to avoid wading off into the weeds like this sometimes.

Politicians in Washington, inside and outside of the administration, are demanding another US intervention in Syria of the same sort that produced a Libya we’re now preparing to flee, and where Americans can’t walk safely even in the capital. The false narrative had the effect, intended or not, of covering up the disaster that our intervention has created in Libya, and which led directly to the attack on our consulate by radical Islamist terrorists.

Obama, who was an obscure back-bencher in 2004, made a name for himself by criticizing G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but he blundered badly in Libya, not even learning his own lesson! Iraq is probably a safer and more stable country than Libya right now. It isn’t enough to take out the “bad guy” (like Saddam or Qaddafi), you need to know who you’re fighting FOR.

The “Arab Spring” was a disaster, and let’s stop the bleeding with Egypt and Libya, and not knock over the Syrian domino, but let our enemies kill each other there.

There was a much better opportunity with the “Persian Spring” in 2009, but Smart Power was AWOL for that one!

Part of me wants to see Hillary absolutely buried in this sh!t, but part of me would rather see 2016 R candidate run against a Hillary badly damaged by this, if such a thing is even possible.

rightmind on May 10, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I prefer that Hillary be totally buried by this NOW, because she is much too crafty and resilient to be trusted in 2016. Benghazi will be “old hat” by 2016, so she can’t be let “off the hook” now.

Issa and his committee need to keep pressing on until they get answers as to who gave the order to stand down. They need to work their way up the chain of command, but how many career State Department people will take the fall for Hillary, now that she’s no longer their boss? If push came to shove, Obummer would probably throw Hillary under the bus to save his own skin.

The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department’s own “accountability review,” we still don’t know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn’t or couldn’t respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn’t an answer.

–The “timely fashion” bit. How about, “in any meaningful way.” As Resist has pointed out, no one knew the scope or duration of the attack when it occurred. It could have been the beginning of a two-week siege. We shouldn’t allow this lack of response to be cast as “the cops were too slow to arrive.” The problem is that the cops appear to have been told nevermind.

2.U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack.

Even after it became clear that the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton invoked it as the cause of the attack at a memorial service for the slain Americans. And President Obama told the United Nations that everyone should condemn “those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

— Is he making an observer’s error? It was always clear to Hillary Clinton that the movie had nothing to do with it. If he means that she continued to lie to the public even after the lie had been revealed to the public, there’s precious little passion about it in that remark. If that’s really what he means, point 2 shouldn’t be “U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack,” but “The Obama administration continues to lie openly to the public.”

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.

And the media swallowed this bullcrap whole during the campaign, asked no questions that mattered, intimidated those who MIGHT ask questions, while blithely all along telling the low information voter (translation – dumb a$$es who are inclined to vote for the person offering the most free stuff) that none of this matters. It may be rat-ears who did this, but he could not have done it without his media enablers and cheerleaders. THEY are as corrupt as he.

Turns out it matters a great deal. Ask those who are stil unemployed after 5+ years of no job growth. Ask those who could still lose their jobs in subsequent downturns, almost inevitable because of the rat-ears’ economic incompetence, downright idiocy, and give-a-crap attitude about anything other than ‘transforming America’ and his progressive agenda.

And now watching the lying LSM enablers jump on the Bengazi bandwagon is almost nauseating. I’d rather they were consistent in their in-the-tank for rat-ears – if they are right some of the time it becomes a cover for their ‘we’re not biased’ storyline, allowing them to continue to lie and enable their favorite progressive politicians at will.

This is the wrong course. We need to realize the White House will LOVE to keep this about a press release. The real crime is how and why Stevens was there in the first place!

1. We know Stevens was sent there by Hillary, after she knew the threat environment was increasing and his protection was being stripped.

2. The White House and State decided to control the narrative by limiting the resources used to rescue the ambassador. The larger the rescue force the more mouths to keep quiet afterwards. They wanted the people do their best with what they had, and then make up a story as to what happened. Which is what basically happened.

3. Hillary lied about what she knew when she knew it. When the fecal matter hit the fan, she bailed. The irony of her political campaign ad about the 3am phone call is inescapable. It turns out her vaunted status as a fearless leader is more illusion than substance. As we knew all along. Remember,she as done nothing. If it weren’t for Ross Perot there would have been no Bill Clinton, no Bill no Hillary.

The lies that it was about a movie were a deliberate attack by the Obama Administration on the 1st Amendment… as was his little quote from the UN speech. Impeach based on this. He is a despicable wannabe tyrant.

Let’s not forget that knowing perfectly well that the video was not the cause of the coordinated and planned terrorist attack in Benghazi, Obama spend $70k in television ads apologizing for the video as part of his “response” to Benghazi. It was all a fraud, and he intentionally wasted our money simply to divert attention away from the truth. A truth that is only now starting to come out.